Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Asim R P <apraveen(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Jimmy Yih <jyih(at)pivotal(dot)io>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket
Date: 2018-07-19 20:04:01
Message-ID: 23818.1532030641@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Nico Williams <nico(at)cryptonector(dot)com> writes:
> What I'd do is have a volatile sig_atomic_t in_signal_handler_context
> variable to indicate that we're dying, and then when that is non-zero,
> ereport() and friends could use all-async-signal-safe codepaths.

I eagerly await your patch with an async-safe implementation of ereport...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nico Williams 2018-07-19 20:04:15 Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket
Previous Message Nico Williams 2018-07-19 20:01:44 Re: [HACKERS] possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket